Due to my concerns with fluoride being added to the Shoalhaven Council’s water supply, I was referred to your Fluoridation Fact Sheet.

The Council has advised me the fluoride being added to our water supply is Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicafluoride. When examining your Fact sheet, I was surprised to learn you have used the generic term, “fluoride”, rather than the specific terms Sodium Fluoride or Sodium Silicafluoride, as follows:

WATER FLUORIDATION

Water fluoridation is used to prevent dental decay. It is a safe, effective way of providing benefit to individuals of all ages in the community.

Extensive research supports water fluoridation as an effective measure in preventing and reducing tooth decay. When you claim, Extensive research supports water fluoridation as an effective measure in preventing and reducing tooth decay, are you discussing Calcium Fluoride, Sodium Fluoride or Sodium Silicafluoride?

Your comment: Fluoride can limit the amount of acid produced, and can also repair damage before it becomes permanent. A constant supply of a low level of fluoride in the mouth is best for this. In this way, fluoride in the water supply acts like a constant ‘repair kit’ for teeth.

Implies that the Fluoride discussed in the Fact sheet is Sodium Fluoride, purported to reduce tooth decay, see:

The evidence that Sodium fluoride is effective in reducing decay is not supported by the scientific research – fluoride research document attached.

Even though the Fact sheet does not state it is about fluoridation, using Sodium fluoride, I presume this is the case. If I am mistaken, please advise why this is so?

The Fact Sheet goes on to state:

In NSW alone there are more than 50 years of experience proving the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation.

Most Australians have had water fluoridation for 25-50 years. NSW has one of the highest levels of water fluoridation (approximately 95% of the population has access to fluoridated water).

On the assumption it is Sodium Fluoride being used in water supplies for the past 50 years, please provide the empirical scientific research supporting the statement, proving the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation, and that it has not caused any harm.

My research of the empirical scientific data clearly proves Sodium Fluoride is a highly hazardous chemical waste, a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum and phosphate fertilizers.

Sodium Fluoride was introduced into our drinking water in 1956. Sixty years ago, 1 in 10,000 contracted cancer, today it is 1 in 3 and getting close to 1 in 2. As the Sodium Fluoride (the industrial grade toxic waste resulting from the production of phosphates and aluminum) added to our water supply has been linked to cancers, this may be one reason for the frightening increase in cancer sufferers in this country. Furthermore, this toxic waste has been linked to many health problems, including Heart disease, Dementia,

Furthermore, it is apparent that the Australian Government is aware of the harmful affects of this mass poisoning of our people, otherwise why have some States passed legislation to protect them against prosecution, see:

The evidence provided by Dr Dean Burk, a cancer research specialist with 50 years experience, showing graphically the dramatic difference in the increase in cancers since the introduction of fluoride in fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas is irrefutable. Furthermore, for Dr Burk to state publicly “Fluoridation is public murder”, “it is killing 70,000 people every year.” “It is forcing people to kill themselves” is a serious indictment for anyone continuing to support the use of Sodium fluoride in water supplies.

The class action video shows graphically just how dangerous Sodium fluoride is when it is killing dogs and valuable horses.

The Fact sheet goes on to state:

What is the evidence for water fluoridation?

An overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports community water fluoridation as a safe and effective measure in the prevention of dental decay. It has been endorsed by numerous organisations, including the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

In view of the empirical scientific evidence proving Sodium fluoride is nothing more than a highly hazardous chemical waste by-product, please provide me with the empirical scientific evidence you rely on when making this claim. Please advise the WHO research, supporting the ingestion of Sodium Fluoride.

With regard to the NHMRC, I cannot find any reference to the safety for ingesting Sodium Fluoride.

I recently wrote to that department concerning this and other matters – see attached.

As you claim there is overwhelming scientific evidence, please provide me with the various links, proving empirically it is safe to ingest Sodium Fluoride.

Your comment:

The chemical qualities of public water supply systems in NSW, which receive fluoridation, are monitored on a monthly basis. This includes tests for lead arsenic and cadmium.

Does not mention the other heavy metals that combine with Sodium Fluoride when it comes into existence as a by-product of aluminium and phosphate fertilizer manufacture.

The attached Water Quality Test sheet for my Council not only includes those mentioned but also aluminium and mercury, all of which are extremely toxic/deadly chemicals. Clearly these chemicals are being dumped into the water supply as part of the Sodium Fluoride, see:

As you have cited the WHO and NHMRC as the authorities for claiming Sodium Fluoride is safe to ingest, please provide me with the links supporting the safety and benefits of ingesting Sodium fluoride and these heavy metals that accompany it. If you are unable to do so, please advise why not?

I look forward to hearing from you shortly concerning the matters I have raised.